Ecological Impact Assessment – Bats and Birds

12 Green Head Park Ashopton Road Bamford S33 0AS 18 July 2017 Client : Mr & Mrs Cook Contents

Quality Assurance ........................................................................................................... 4

1. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Purpose of the report ............................................................................................... 5 1.2 Methods .................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Key issues ............................................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Bats .................................................................................................................. 5 1.3.2 Birds ............................................................................................................... 5

2. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Background to survey ............................................................................................ 6

3. Planning policy and legislation .................................................................................... 8 3.1 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 ................................. 8 3.2 Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 .......................................................................... 8 3.3 National Planning Policy Framework .................................................................... 8 3.4 Section 41 Habitats and Species (NERC Act 2006) .............................................. 8

4. Methods ....................................................................................................................... 10 4.1 Desk study ............................................................................................................. 10 4.1.1 Designated wildlife sites ................................................................................. 10 4.2 Field survey .......................................................................................................... 10 4.2.1 Habitats .......................................................................................................... 10 4.2.2 Species ........................................................................................................... 10 4.2.3 Other protected species assessment ............................................................... 12

5. Baseline ecological conditions .................................................................................... 13 5.1 Designated sites ..................................................................................................... 13 5.2 Species and species groups .................................................................................. 13 5.2.1 Bats ................................................................................................................ 13 5.2.2 Birds .............................................................................................................. 14

6. Description of the proposed development .................................................................. 15

7. Assessment methodology ............................................................................................ 16 7.1 Evaluation of ecological features .......................................................................... 16 7.2 Assessment of impacts ......................................................................................... 18 7.3 Significance criteria ............................................................................................... 19

8. Assessment of effects and mitigation ......................................................................... 20 8.1 Bats ....................................................................................................................... 20 8.1.1 Potential Impacts ............................................................................................ 20 Table 2-1 Proposed plans and pre-existing information................................................................. 6 Table 2-2. Summary of objectives.................................................................................................. 6 Table 4-1. Consulted Records Organisation.................................................................................. 10 Table 4-2. Organisations consulted with regard designated wildlife sites ................................. 10 Table 4-3. Nocturnal surveys and personal.................................................................................. 11 Table 7-1. Criteria for Determining Value.................................................................................... 16 Table 7-2. Magnitude of Impact for Ecological Assessment......................................................... 18 Table 10-1 Features typical of building with different suitability categories ............................... 23 Table 11-1. Designated sites within 2km ..................................................................................... 29 Table 11-2 Bat records returned from Derbyshire Bat Conservation Group\*............................... 29 Table 11-3. Internal External Assessment.................................................................................... 30

Figure 11-1 Location Plan.............................................................................................................. 26 Figure 11-2. Building ID Plan....................................................................................................... 27 Figure 11-3. 9th May 2017 Dusk emergence survey.................................................................... 33 Figure 11-4. 23rd May 2017 Dusk emergence survey................................................................. 34 Figure 11-5. 15th June 2017 Dawn return survey........................................................................ 35

Quality Assurance

| Project Number | 0591.17 | |----------------|---------| | Project Name | 12 Greenhead Park, Bamford | | Site location | 12 Greenhead park Bamford, S33 0AS, OS Grid Reference SK 2070 383921. | | File name | 0591_17_ECIA_12 Greenhead park final including Figures final check.docx | | Version | V01 |

| Principal Author | Checked By | Approved By | |------------------|------------|-------------| | Paul Liptrot | Jon Goodrick | Jon Goodrick |

1. **Summary**

1.1 **Purpose of the report**

1. This report has been commissioned to inform the potential ecological constraints of two story residential on the rear of 12 Greenhead park Bamford S33 0AS (OS Grid Reference SK 2070 383921)

2. The report details the results of the ecological surveys undertaken, identify constraints posed by the protected species present and presents opportunities for maintaining the biodiversity value of the site.

1.2 **Methods**

3. The following surveys were undertaken on the site:

   - Preliminary Ecological Appraisal which included:
     - Bat internal and external visual building assessment – 11th April 2017
     - Protected and notable species survey – 11th April 2017
     - Desktop Study – Summer 2017
   - Bat nocturnal presence/absence dusk emergence survey – 17th May 2017
   - Bat nocturnal presence/absence dusk emergence survey – 23rd May 2017
   - Bat nocturnal presence/absence dawn return survey 15th June 2017

4. All surveys informed by current good practice guidance.

1.3 **Key issues**

1.3.1 **Bats**

5. A common pipistrelle day roost was recorded to be present within the property. As such a European Mitigation Protected Species Licence (EPSML) will be required to undertake the proposed work on the site.

1.3.2 **Birds**

06. The building as the potential to be used by nesting birds. As such, it is recommended that the proposed work is undertaken outside the main nesting period (March to Mid-September)

07. **Introduction**

08. The principal author of this report was Paul Liptrot (GradCIEEM) Class 2 Bat Licence Ref: 2016-23024-CLS-CLS.

09. Wildscapes was commissioned on by Mr & Mrs Cook to undertake a bat survey investigations at 12 Greenhead Park, Bamford (OS Grid Reference SK 2070 383921).

10. The broad location plan of the site and a plan detailing the application building are included in Appendix A.1. This report is intended to form part of the supporting information for the planning application to build a two story extension to the rear of the property. A plan of the proposal is included in Appendix D.

11. This document is intended to inform all interested parties of the baseline ecological conditions for the site and from this highlight any ecological constraints or opportunities of the proposed development. The report includes the findings of the surveys undertaken, together with relevant explanatory plans, outline mitigation and compensation methods (where applicable) and recommendations for any further survey work (as required).

12. This report has been designed to comply with standard reporting guidelines provided within both the British Standard Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development – BS 42020:2013 (BSI, 2013) and the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing (CIEEM, 2015).

2.1 **Background to survey**

12. The application building comprises of a 19th-century semi-detached house located on the outskirts of the village of Bamford, Hope Valley, Peak District. The property is located approximately 1.8km south of Ladybower Reservoir, is immediately adjacent to agricultural pasture to the north east and is approximately 550m east of the banks of the River Derwent. The surrounding land is considered to be well connected, with numerous mature hedgerows interspersed with small blocks of woodland throughout the dominant land use, agricultural pasture. The area appears to have very limited artificial lighting present with limited street lamps noted.

13. Wildscapes has been provided with background information as shown within Table 2-1 *Proposed plans and pre-existing information*. Table 2-2. Summary of objectives details the objectives of the ecological assessment undertaken.

| TYPE | ITEM TITLE / REFERENCE | DATE ISSUED / PUBLISHED | |------|------------------------|-------------------------| | Plan | Extensions to 12 Greenhead Park Bamford – Proposed Plans and Elevations 649/02A | Oct 2016 |

Table 2-2. Summary of objectives

| OBJECTIVE | |-----------| | To identify and describe all potentially significant ecological effects associated with the proposed development | | OBJECTIVE | |-----------| | To set out the mitigation measures required to ensure compliance with nature conservation legislation and to address any potentially significant ecological effects | | To identify how mitigation measures will/could be secured | | To provide an assessment of the significance of any residual effects | 3. Planning policy and legislation

14. This legal information is a summary and intended for general guidance only. It is recommended that the original documentation is referred to for detailed and definitive information. Web addresses are located in the References and Bibliography section of this report.

3.1 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

15. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) transpose Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna (Habitats Directive) into English law, making it an offence to deliberately capture, kill or disturb wild animals listed under Schedule 2 of the Regulations. It is also an offence to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal (even if the animal is absent at the time).

3.2 Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981

16. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW) 2000 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006 (which also places a duty on authorities to have due regard for biodiversity and nature conservation) consolidates and amends existing national legislation to implement the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive), making it an offence to:

- Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird or their eggs or nests (with certain exceptions) and disturb any bird species listed under Schedule 1 to the Act, or its dependent young while it is nesting;
- Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild animal listed in Schedule 5 to the Act; intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct any place used for shelter or protection by any wild animal listed in Schedule 5 to the Act; intentionally or recklessly disturb certain Schedule 5 animal species while they occupy a place used for shelter or protection;
- Pick or uproot any wild plant listed under Schedule 8 of the Act.

3.3 National Planning Policy Framework

17. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) outlines government planning policies and how they should be applied to local authorities. The framework places an emphasis on sustainable development, encouraging the re-use of land that has previously been developed over using land that has a higher environmental value and by minimising impacts on biodiversity. The NPPF states that developments should aim to conserve or enhance biodiversity and encourages opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments.

3.4 Section 41 Habitats and Species (NERC Act 2006)

18. Section 41 (S41) of the NERC Act 2006 requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats and species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. The S41 list is used to guide decision-makers such as public bodies, including local and regional authorities, in implementing their duty under Section 40.
19. Methods

4.1 Desk study

19. Ecological record information for the site and surrounding area (up to two kilometres) was requested from the organisations included within Table 4-1. Consulted Records Organisation.

Table 4-1. Consulted Records Organisation

| DATE CONSULTED | ORGANISATION | RECORDS REQUESTED | |----------------|---------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 19th April 2017| Derbyshire Bat Conservation Group | Search of records and supply of data with respect to the area Grid squares searched SK 1883-84,1982-85, 2081-85, 2182-85, 2282-85 (No of records 20) |

4.1.1 Designated wildlife sites

20. Information regarding designated wildlife sites within the local area was requested from the organisations within Table 4-2. Organisations consulted with regard designated wildlife sites.

Table 4-2. Organisations consulted with regard designated wildlife sites

| DATE CONSULTED | ORGANISATION | RECORDS REQUESTED | |----------------|---------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 11/07/2016 | Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) | Local Nature Reserves, National Nature Reserves, Ancient woodland, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas or Ramsar sites within a 2km radius of the site |

21. In addition to the above, online mapping sources including Google Maps, Where the path and Bing Maps is was used to view both satellite imagery and maps of the site and surrounding land.

4.2 Field survey

4.2.1 Habitats

22. The proposed development is located entirely within the properties residential garden as such no habitat surveys were undertaken as part of this survey investigation.

4.2.2 Species

Bats - Internal external visual assessment

23. An Internal and External Visual Assessment was undertaken on the buildings and structures (Appendix B – Survey results Table 11-3.Internal External Assessment). Both the internal and external inspections were undertaken on 11th April 2017 by Paul Liptrot.

24. Features such as small gaps in barge/soffit/fascia boards, raised or missing ridge tiles and gaps at gable ends, which have potential as access points were sought. Evidence that potential access points were actively used by bats includes staining within gaps and bat droppings or urine staining under gaps; any marks such as these were recorded. Indicators that potential access points were likely to be inactive included the presence of cobwebs and general detritus within the access.

25. The interior of the building(s) including roof voids was visually assessed for evidence of bat activity and/or for the potential to be used by roosting bats, where possible. Evidence of a roost was determined as the presence of a dead or live bat, concentrated piles or scattered droppings, food remains such as insect wing fragments as well as scratch marks and/or staining.

26. When a roost is positively identified during an Internal and External Visual Assessment the building within which the roost is located is classified within the category **Roost Present**. Other buildings are classified as having **High, Moderate, Low, Negligible** suitability to contain bat roosts based upon the number and quality of features present, and the building’s position in relation to the surrounding habitats.

27. A High Potential building would typically be an older building situated close to high-quality bat foraging habitats such as woodland, water features or substantial hedgerows. Buildings falling within this class will usually offer a variety of roosting opportunities suitable for use by a range of bat species.

28. Conversely, a Negligible Potential building will typically be well sealed and of modern construction, offering no or few clear access points or roosting opportunities. The risk of a building housing a bat roost is further reduced if located within an area of poor quality habitats such as hard standing or amenity grassland.

**Bat – Presence and absence survey**

29. Three nocturnal presence and absence surveys were undertaken at the site. Please refer to **Table 4-3. Nocturnal surveys and personal** for dates and surveyors used.

**Table 4-3. Nocturnal surveys and personal**

| Date | Survey | Personal | |--------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | May 17th 2017 (visit 1) | Dusk emergence survey | Paul Liptrot (GradCIEEM) Bat Class 2 Licence Class 2 Bat Licence 2016-23024-CLS-CLS. and David Gash (MCIEEM) BSc Hons. | | May 23rd 2017 (visit 2) | Dusk emergence survey | Paul Liptrot (GradCIEEM) Bat Class 2 Licence Class 2 Bat Licence 2016-23024-CLS-CLS. and David Gash (MCIEEM) BSc Hons. | | 15th June 2017 (visit 3) | Dawn return survey | Paul Liptrot (GradCIEEM) Bat Class 2 Licence Class 2 Bat Licence 2016-23024-CLS-CLS. and David Gash (MCIEEM) BSc Hons. | 30. All surveyors were equipped with a mixture of BatBox Duet, Peersonic RPA3 and The Wildlife Acoustics EM3 bat detectors and positioned to give a clear view of all sides of the building being surveyed. A minimum of 2 surveyors was considered necessary to ensure full coverage of the survey building.

31. Emergence surveys commence 15 minutes prior to sunset and continue until 1.5 hours after sunset. Dawn surveys commence 1.5 hours before sunrise and continue until all bats are considered to have returned. Weather conditions during the nocturnal survey were conducive to bat activity with little or no rain, low wind and temperatures above 10°C.

32. During nocturnal bat surveys, the main objective is to record any bats entering or leaving the surveyed property and the location of any entry/exit points. In addition, surveyors record any other bat activity detectable from their survey position. Where possible the time of recording, species, a number of bats, type of activity, and flight path of observed bats are recorded. Bats entering or leaving a building or tree are considered evidence of bat roost presence within that entity.

**Infrared Camera**

33. To supplement the surveyors a canon X100 Video camera with night shot and an external infrared torch was used to survey the building during nocturnal visit 2 and 3.

**Bat DNA Analysis**

34. Droppings were recovered from the external wall of the northern face of the property and tested from bat DNA by Warwick University. The results of this analysis were not available to be included in this report how will be used to inform the following licence application.

**GCN – Aquatic habitat suitability index assessment**

35. Following the initial desktop study, no further assessment was undertaken or considered required, as no standing waterbodies were recorded with 250m of the proposed development site.

**4.2.3 Other protected species assessment**

36. Any incidental records of other notable mammal and bird species, observed when conducting the surveys investigation was recorded.

37. **Baseline ecological conditions**

38. The Impact of the proposed is localised to within the garden immediately adjacent to the surveyed property (zone of influence). The habitat within this area comprises of hard standing, introduced planting and amenity grassland. As such the key receptors are considered to be species which are associated with dwellings and other structures i.e. bats and birds. Therefore, all other species not considered to be key receptors have been discounted from this report because they are not considered relevant to the outlined proposals.

5.1 **Designated sites**

38. Please refer to *Table 11-1. Designated sites within 2km for* a table summarising the designated sites with 2km.

39. Five designated sites were returned with the desktop study. The closest of which is the Eastern Peak District Moors and the South Pennie Moors located 400m to the north of the survey site.

5.2 **Species and species groups**

5.2.1 **Bats**

40. The data search returned eight roost records within 2km of the survey site. The closest of which is 2 records located approximately 300m to the south by south east for a probable brown long-eared *Plecotus auritus* maternity roost. A record for probable common pipistrelle *Pipistrellus pipistrellus* maternity roost was also returned 400m to the SE, as was a single record for a Juvenile noctule bat *Nyctalus noctula* 1.3km to the south.

**IEVA**

41. The Internal External Visual Assessment classified the building as **Roost Present** due to the presence of bat droppings on the face of the building northern elevation immediately below the eves and multiple potential access points along the eves and throughout the roof structure.

42. Please refer to Table 11-3. Internal External Assessment of table summary of the IEVA results.

**Nocturnal presence and absence**

43. Following the IEVA classification, the three nocturnal survey concluded that a common pipistrelle day roost is present within the property.

44. Please refer to figures for plans and tables detailing the results of the nocturnal survey.

**Conservation status**

45. The common pipistrelle is currently considered to be wide spread and common, locally, regionally and nationally. Common pipistrelle day roosts are roosts that are used for shelter and social activity throughout the summer months by small numbers of nonbreeding bats and as such are considered to be of low conservation importance.

46. A maximum count of 3 bats was recorded exiting/entering the property during the 3 visits. As such it is estimated that a maximum of 5 common pipistrelle bats currently roosts within the property throughout the summer months. 5.2.2 Birds

47. Birds displaying nesting behaviour was observed during the Internal External Visual Assessment and nocturnal surveys.

48. As a result of these findings, it is recommended that the proposed works are carried out outside of the main bird nesting period which runs from March to August inclusive. Should works need to be carried out within the period a suitable method statement for the protection of nesting birds will be put in place which will include:

49. Pre-works inspection of suitable nesting features and nests within Building 1 and the immediate work area by a suitably qualified ecologist. If active nests are found, works cannot commence until all chicks have fledged.

50. If at any point during the works nesting birds are found, works will be suspended and advice sought from suitably qualified ecologist

51. Description of the proposed development

52. The proposals are to construct a two story extension on the rear (northern-western) aspect of the property which will include all the typical amenities of a residential dwelling.

53. The scope of the work will include work to the properties roof and eves.

54. Please refer to Appendix D for plans of the proposed scheme.

55. Assessment methodology

7.1 Evaluation of ecological features

54. The following criteria have been used to assess the value of any identified receptors within the identified zone of influence. The criteria have been applied to the habitats and species that need to be assessed because they are of biodiversity value rather than because they are legally protected (although it is recognised that there may be overlap).

- The habitats, vegetation plant and animal life have been evaluated with reference to standard nature conservation criteria as described by Ratcliffe (1977) and the Nature Conservancy Council (1989). These are size (extent), diversity, naturalness, rarity, fragility, typicalness, recorded history, position in an ecological or geographical unit, potential value and intrinsic appeal;
- The National Vegetation Classification (NVC) can be used to evaluate those habitats that can be assessed in terms of plant communities.
- Government advice on wildlife, as set out in NPPF, has been taken into consideration. References to having been made to the associated documents, namely the Countryside and Rights of Way Act.
- Attention has also been given to the objectives of the UKBAP and to local BAPs and species action plans.

55. In addition to the actual value of habitats and wildlife, secondary (or supporting) value, potential value and social value have been considered. For example, some features that are currently of no particular ecological interest in themselves may nevertheless perform an ecological function, e.g. because they act as a buffer against negative impacts, or because they enable in some other way the effective conservation of a more valuable feature. An example of a feature which is of secondary value is the presence of small pockets of green spaces within an urban environment as the green spaces may create ‘stepping stones’ and contribute to the dispersal, migration and genetic exchange of wild species (including protected species).

56. Where possible, the potential value of a feature has been recognised. The potential value of a feature is related to the ease by which a feature (such as a habitat) can be altered for example by a change in the management to improve and enhance the feature and possibly achieve biodiversity targets as defined in the UK and Local BAPs.

57. Using the evaluation tools described above a set of Valued Ecological Receptors has been identified. The value assigned to a receptor determines the geographic scale at which the impact is significant. The ecological receptor is considered valuable (or has the potential to become valuable) on the scale detailed in Table 7-1 below.

| RECEPTOR VALUE | DESCRIPTION | |----------------|-------------| | International | International importance, plus biodiversity assets such as: | | | - Internationally (including European) designated sites: Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar, Special Area for Conservation (SAC); | | | - A site which meets the criteria for designation as an international site but is not designated; | | RECEPTOR VALUE | DESCRIPTION | |----------------|-------------| | National/UK | National importance, plus biodiversity assets such as:\
| | - Nationally designated sites: Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature Reserve (NNR);\
| | - A site which meets the criteria for designation as a national site but is not designated;\
| | - A significant\* population of a more common and widespread European protected species in this geographical region.\
| | - A significant population of a protected species under all parts of Schedule 1, 5 or 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 e.g. badger\
| | \*e.g. a population of bird species representative of more than 1% of the national population. | | Regional | Regional importance, plus biodiversity assets such as:\
| | - A good/typical example of a UK BAP Priority Habitat that satisfies all the criteria in the Priority Habitat definition but is in some way slightly enhanced (e.g. presence of a species that is localised in the region)\
| | - A regularly occurring, locally significant population of a species listed as being nationally scarce | | County/ District | County or District importance, plus the biodiversity assets such as:\
| | - Sites of county importance (non-statutory) designated by local authorities or others, including semi-natural ancient woodland greater than 0.25ha, and species equivalents. In Derbyshire, these are known as Local Wildlife Sites (LWS)\
| | - UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Habitats as defined by Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and UK BAP (2007).\
| | - Significant populations of UK Biodiversity Action Plan Species as defined by Section 74 of the Country side and Rights of Way Act and the UK BAP (2007). | | Local | Local/Parish importance, plus biodiversity assets such as:\
| | - Populations of UK BAP Priority Species which are not considered to be exceptional or of significance in the local geographic area.\
| | - Areas of habitat which appreciably enrich the habitat resource in the local or parish contexts but are not of substantive biological importance e.g. local green spaces and wildlife corridors within an urban area\
| | - Habitats and species listed on the Local BAP (but not already listed as UK BAP Priority Habitats and Species) | | Within the zone of immediate influence only/ Site | Less than local importance, with very limited biodiversity assets such as:\
| | - Species poor vegetation communities;\
| | - Typical populations of common and widespread mammal, bird, amphibian and/or reptile species. | 7.2 Assessment of impacts

58. Assessment of potential ecological impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed development is based on predicting ecologically significant changes (impacts) to the baseline conditions of the site that are likely to occur.

59. Impacts are predicted based on the potential effects that the proposals would have on those aspects of ecological structure and function on which the identified Valued Ecological Receptors depend. Natural trends and inherent resilience of a receptor have been considered and changes will be discussed using the following headings:

- Direction (positive/negative): whether the effect will result in net loss or degradation of a Valued Ecological Receptor or whether it will enhance or improve it;
- Magnitude and/or extent of impact;
- Duration (short-or long-term, where short-term is defined and the duration of anticipated activity which results in an effect);
- Reversibility (chance of recovery/replacement within a reasonable time frame); and
- Timing and frequency: consideration of the timing of events in relation to ecological change. Some effects may be of greater significance if they take place at the certain time of year (e.g. breeding season). The extent to which an effect is repeated may also be of importance.

60. Each ecological receptor has been assessed to determine the likely construction and operational impacts of implementation of the development proposals, to outline any mitigation required and to highlight residual impacts.

61. A precautionary approach has been taken in the prediction of impacts. Where there is any doubt, the impact is given at a higher level.

62. Table 7-2 details the criteria used in the assessment of the magnitude of an identified impact on the identified Valued Ecological Receptors.

Table 7-2. Magnitude of Impact for Ecological Assessment

| MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT | DESCRIPTION | |---------------------|-------------| | Major | The proposed development would cause a large change to existing environmental conditions. This includes major effects on the integrity of large-scale and ecologically significant areas; the land being affected is likely to comprise a designated site (SPA, SAC, SSSI etc.) or key habitats as listed in | | MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT | DESCRIPTION | |---------------------|-------------| | the UK BAP (lowland meadow, lowland dry acid grassland, standing open waters etc.) and/or support significant populations of statutorily protected species. | | Moderate | The proposed development would cause a noticeable change to existing environmental condition. This includes major effects on a scale that would affect a moderate proportion of an area that is considered to be ecologically important, including designated sites, key habitats, local sites of substantive biological importance (LWSs) but will not affect the overall integrity of the area. Also included here are minor scale effects on protected species. | | Minor | The proposed development would cause a small change to existing environmental conditions. This includes major effects on common wildlife habitats, common types of semi-natural vegetation and minor but valuable wildlife features in the landscape. Other important but not protected species may experience temporary disturbance and minor effects. | | Negligible | The proposed development would cause no discernible change to existing environmental conditions. Temporary or very small-scale damage to common types of semi-natural vegetation or habitat or minor losses of such habitat is included here. This includes minor effects on very common wildlife species. |

7.3 **Significance criteria**

63. An ecologically significant impact is defined as one that affects the integrity of a site or ecosystem, or the conservation status of a habitat or species within a geographical area.

64. It must be recognised that there are limitations associated with the scope of any assessment. The relevance of surveys conducted at this stage must be considered at the time of implementation of site specific proposals. This would be achieved through the projection of current baseline conditions through the provision for updated survey to refine assessments throughout the development period. This is dealt with in the ecological evaluation (Section F of this EcIA).

65. The significance has been assessed on the basis of the value of the features and the magnitude of effects taking into account professional judgement.

66. It is generally the case that no significant effect can occur to features of less than local importance, other than in exceptional circumstances such as where a feature has high social or economic value or the magnitude effect is particularly high.

67. Assessment of effects and mitigation

8.1 Bats

8.1.1 Potential Impacts

Roost destruction

67. The proposed works, without suitable mitigation, would likely result in the destruction of a common pipistrelle day roost and as such as the potential for injury and/or kill individual or groups of common pipistrelle bats (up to 5 individuals).

68. This is considered as having a major negative impact at the site level.

8.1.2 Mitigation measures

69. To allow the proposed works to continue legally, a European Protected Species Mitigation Licence (EPSML) will be required.

70. The EPSML will include a suitable method statement and work schedule to protect any bats present within the property throughout the proposed work period.

8.1.3 Compensation

71. Due to the low conservation value of common pipistrelle day roosts no compensation is required under the EPSML application for the destruction of a common pipistrelle day roost. However, to ensure no net loss of biodiversity is experience in line with the National Planning Policy Framework a bat tube, as detailed in Appendix B, will be incorporated into the proposed extension designs to compensate for the loss of the common pipistrelle day roost.

72. It is recommended that this element is secured by a suitable post-construction phase condition.

8.1.4 Significance of residual effects

73. No residual effect will be encountered if the above compensation measures are implemented.

8.2 Birds

8.2.1 Potential Impacts

Nest destruction and/or disturbance

74. Nesting birds were recorded to be using the property during the IEVA and the nocturnal surveys and the building and in its current state of repair, the building is considered to offer good habitat for nesting birds.

75. The proposed works, without suitable mitigation, would likely result in the destruction or disturbance of active bird nests which could result in individual birds and/or chicks being injured or killed.

76. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended (section 1), it is an offence to remove, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built. Planning consent for a development does not provide a defence against prosecution under this act.

77. All habitats and buildings on site are considered to have the potential for nesting birds. Destruction/disturbance of these habitats may result in the destruction/damage of nests and therefore a breach of the law. If unmitigated, this loss is considered to offer a **Major Negative Significant Impact at Site/Local Level**.

78. This is considered as having a major negative significant impact at site/local level.

8.2.2 Mitigation measures

79. The following reasonable avoidance measures will be put in place to ensure the protection of nesting birds throughout the construction phase.

80. Workers will be made aware of the potential for nesting birds on site. If at any point during the development active nests are suspected as being present within the work area, works will be suspended immediately until the advice of a suitably experienced ecologist sought.

81. In order to minimise the risks to nesting birds, any vegetation clearance works (where possible) will be conducted outside of the main bird nesting period 1st March - 31st August.

82. All habitats, including buildings, present on the site are to be assumed to contain nesting birds between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a recent survey has been undertaken by a competent ecologist to assess the nesting bird activity on site during this period and has shown with absolute certainty that nesting birds are not present.

83. It is recommended that this element is secured by a suitable pre-construction phase condition.

8.2.3 Enhancement

84. It is recommended that nesting bird features are incorporated into the proposed scheme. Example features are included in Appendix C.

8.2.4 Significance of residual effects

85. No significant residual effects.
86. References

Aboricultural Association, 2006. *A Guide to Good Climbing Practice*, Cheltenham: Aboricultural Association.

Aboricultural Association, 2011. *Guidance Note 1 - Bats in the context of tree work operations*, Cheltenham: Aboricultural Association.

BSI, 2013. *Biodiversity. Code of practice for planning and development*. [Online] [Accessed November 2014].

CIEEM, 2015. *Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing*, Winchester: CIEEM.

Collins, J., ed., 2016. *Bat Survey for Professional Ecologist: Good Practice Guidance*. 3rd ed. s.l.: The Bat Conservation Trust.

English Nature, 2001. *Great crested newt mitigation guidelines*, Peterborough: English Nature.

JNCC, 2010. *The Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey, A technique for environmental audit*. [Online] Available at: [http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/pub10_handbookforphase1habitatsurvey.pdf](http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/pub10_handbookforphase1habitatsurvey.pdf)

Oldham, R. S., Keeble, J., Swan, M. & Jeffcote, M., 2000. Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). *Herpetological Journal*, 10(4), pp. 143-155.

The Hedgerows Regulations, 1997. [Online] Available at: [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/note/made](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/note/made) [Accessed 2017].

## 10. Other tables

### Table 10-1 Features typical of building with different suitability categories

| Negligible | Low Suitability | Moderate Suitability | High Suitability | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Geographic location poor species diversity (i.e.: extensive arable areas, upland sites) | Geographic location moderate species diversity | Geographic Location moderate species diversity | Geographic location with moderate or high species diversity (i.e.: Welsh valleys, southern counties) | | No easily identifiable access points such as gaps within stonework or between tiles. | Limited number of access points | Some access points. Typically obscured by cobwebs or detritus. | Several possible access points. Some clean showing potential use. | | No roof void | No roof void | Small or cluttered roof void | Large roof void with unobstructed flying spaces | | No external cavities such as crevices within wall or behind fascia boards | Few external cavities with cavities present of low suitability | External cavities present suitable for small numbers of bats | A variety of external features offering a range of roosting locations. Crevices potentially suitable for larger colonies | | Constructed from less suitable materials for roosting e.g.: metal or concrete fibre board sheeting | Constructed from a mixture of unsuitable and suitable materials (i.e. Stone barn with concrete fibre board roof). | Constructed from suitable materials (stone, brick, timber, slate, clay tile etc) | Constructed from suitable materials (stone, brick, timber, slate, clay tile etc) and over 100 years old | | Located within areas of poor quality habitat, away from bat foraging or commuting routes | Area offering some habitat features likely to be used by bats | Area offering some habitat features likely to be used by bats | Good connectivity to high-quality habitats | | Unstable internal temperature and humidity conditions | Temperature and humidity conditions vary but conditions within potential roosting areas stable | Temperature and humidity conditions vary but conditions within potential roosting areas stable | Stable temperature and humidity conditions throughout the building. | | Not part of a group of buildings | Part of a group of buildings, all offering similar roosting opportunities | Part of a group of buildings, all offering similar roosting opportunities | Part of a group of buildings offering a range of different conditions and potential roost locations | | Heavily disturbed | Potential roosting locations suffering little disturbance | Potential roosting locations suffering little disturbance | Building disused or little used, largely undisturbed | 11. Appendices 11.1 Appendix A – Location Information and site plans Figure 11-1 Location Plan Figure 11-2: Building ID Plan 11.2 Appendix B – Survey results 11.2.1 Desktop Results

Table 11-1. Designated sites within 2km

| Site Name | Designation | Grid Reference | Distance (km) | Bearing | Size (ha) | |----------------------------|------------------------------------|----------------|---------------|---------|-----------| | Parkin Clough | Ancient Replanted Woodland | SK197849 | 1.4 | NW | 3 | | Hallam Barn Grasslands | Site of Special Scientific Interest| SK190834 | 1.8 | WSW | 5 | | River Derwent at Heatherage| Site of Special Scientific Interest| SK208821 | 1.8 | SSE | 8 | | Eastern Peak District Moors| Site of Special Scientific Interest| SK208843 | 0.4 | N | 8193 | | South Pennie Moors | Special Area of Conservation | SK208843 | 0.4 | N | 65026 |

1 approximate grid reference taken from the nearest boundary to development site. 2 Bearing and distance calculate from 6 figure grid reference.

Table 11-2 Bat records returned from Derbyshire Bat Conservation Group\*

| OS Grid Reference | Common name | Comments | Mean Distance | Accuracy | Bearing | |-------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------------------------|---------------|----------|---------| | SK208836 | Brown long-eared bat | NE roost visit, probable maternity roost Probable BLE | 0.3 | 100m | SSE | | SK208836 | Brown long-eared bat | 100s of droppings, mainly under ridge and at gable ends. No bats at visit but 3 bat seen by owner in Nov 06 when more loft insulation added. Suggests BLE. | 0.3 | 100m | SSE | | SK210836 | Common pipistrelle (45) | Emergence count | 0.4 | 100m | SE | | SK210836 | Brown long-eared bat | Emergence count | 0.4 | 100m | SE | | SK210836 | Brown long-eared bat | At least 30 bats in 2nd loft. | 0.4 | 100m | SE | | SK197835 | Brown long-eared bat | One bat on ridge board | 1.0 | 100m | WSW | | SK197835 | Brown long-eared bat | NE roost visit, maternity roost | 1.0 | 100m | WSW | | SK203826 | Noctule | bat found on drive. Juv F, released after 5 days. | 1.3 | 100m | S |

- Records returned were filter by date to only include records within the last ten years (i.e. since 2007). 1 Distance, bearing and accuracy calculate from OS figure grid reference provided and the site approximate central grid reference. 11.2.2 Internal External Visual Assessment

Table 11-3. Internal External Assessment

| PROJECT NO: | SITE NAME: | SURVEYOR | |-------------|------------|----------| | 0580 | 12 Greenhead Park Bamford | Paul Liptrot |

| DATE: | VISIT NO: | TIME START: | TIME END: | |-------|-----------|-------------|-----------| | 11/4/2017 | 1 | 10:00 | 11:30 |

| TEMP: | RAIN: | BEAUFORT: | CLOUD (%): | |-------|-------|-----------|------------| | 12 | Nil | 2 | 90% |

| TECHNIQUES USED: | IEVA | ENDOSCOPE | THERMAL/IR | HAND NET | OTHER | |------------------|------|-----------|------------|----------|-------| | | Y | N | N | N | Binoculars nikon3 Mornach |

| BUILDING REFERENCE NO. | Building 01 | |------------------------|-------------|

| STRUCTURAL FEATURES PRESENT | GABLES | BARGE BOARDS | SOFFIT BOARDS | FASCIA BOARDS | FLASHING | ROOF VOID | UNDER FELT | |-----------------------------|--------|--------------|---------------|---------------|----------|-----------|------------| | | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y |

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION/DESCRIPTION: Stone built 2 story semi-detached house with multi-pitch roof covered with concrete interlocking tiles Circa 1900. No soffit present rafters are exposed along overhanging eaves. Building appears to have cavity walls with well-sealed double grazing installed throughout. Windows are set in brick decorated surrounds, stone work was generally in good condition with no gap/crevices noted throughout.

OTHER EXTERNAL STRUCTURAL FEATURES AND SURROUNDING HABITAT The property forms part of a cul-de-sack that is set back from Ashopton Road A6013 which forms the central section of the back row of approximately 60 houses and gardens that immediately border pasture farmland separated by hedgerow and scattered trees. There appeared to be limited or no artificial lighting around the property and surrounding area.

INTERNAL FEATURES: Roof void is currently used for storage and is shallow with limited flight space available approximately 3 x 8 x 1.2m (WXLXH). The void is lined with bitumen felt under the tiles and timber chipboard at floor level.

POTENTIAL BAT ACCESS POINTS: Generally the building is well maintained, the main access points were recorded along the eaves in association with the brick work, above the windows and around the exposed rafters. The roof, windows and walls were found to be well sealed.

BAT EVIDENCE AND/OR EVIDENCE OF OTHER SPECIES: 2 bat droppings were recorded on the external north east facing wall approximately 30-40cm below a gap 5x2cm (WxH) underneath a rafter along the eaves. The gap below the rafter appears to lead on top of the wall plate and potentially in to the cavity walls or under the bitumen felt.

| BAT ROOST POTENTIAL: | Roost Present | |----------------------|---------------| | SURVEYORS REQUIRED TO COVER BUILDING | 2 | 11.2.3 Nocturnal presence and absence Figure 11-3. 9th May 2017 Dusk emergence survey Figure 11-4. 23rd May 2017 Dusk emergence survey Figure 11-5. 15th June 2017 Dawn return survey 11.3 Appendix C – Mitigation, compensation and Enhancement. 11.3.1 Bat roosting features

2FR Schwegler Bat Tube

The 2FR Bat Tube is suitable for bat species which inhabit buildings and is designed to be built into the masonry of an external wall. It can either be built flush with the wall or beneath a rendered surface. The tube is constructed from woodcrete and has an integrated wooden panel onto which bats can easily cling.

Unlike the 1FR, the 2FR has transverse connecting holes which allow several tubes to be placed next to each other in modular form in order to create a much larger space. It is recommended that at least three units are connected together. An optional passage through the rear panel also enables existing cavities in the walls to be accessed via the tube. This provides an excellent solution to the problem of providing access to existing roosts when converting or renovating older buildings.

This box requires no maintenance as droppings fall out of the entrance ramp. House Sparrow nesting box

The Sparrow Terrace has been designed to help redress the balance of falling house sparrow numbers. The current UK population of 6 million pairs is half what it was in 1980 and this is thought to be due to habitat destruction and lack of suitable nesting spaces. Sparrows are social birds and like to nest in company. This terrace provides ideal nesting opportunities for three families. Made of Schwegler's revolutionary wood-concrete mix, this terrace is durable, breathable and will last many decades. It may also occasionally attract tits, redstarts and spotted flycatchers.

The terrace can be fixed on to the surface of a suitable wall or incorporated into the wall. It is suitable for all types of houses in built-up areas, and on industrial and agricultural buildings such as barns, sheds and factories. Due to its weight (15kg), it is not suitable for fences or garden sheds. Ideally place the terrace two metres or more above the ground. Either install on the surface of the wall using the plugs and screws provided, or install directly into the wall (see the images tab for illustrations). Cleaning is advisable but not necessary. The front panel can be removed by turning the screw hook.

The Sparrow Terrace is available in either Stone or Brown 11.4 Appendix D – Proposed plans